This is what happens when nobody is doing the heavy lifting

The ongoing Saudi-Canadian diplomatic spat is what happens when there is instability at the strategic level. And the issue at hand has the potential to cost Canada big.

The Saudi central bank and state pension funds have instructed their overseas asset managers to dispose of their Canadian equities, bonds and cash holdings “no matter the cost.” There is uncertainty regarding business in the defence industry – most notably General Dynamic’s sale of LAVs to the country for $15 billion – while in the agriculture sector, a Lethbridge forage exporter just succeeded in making forays to the Middle Eastern kingdom, and their business there is now at risk, and G3 Ltd, the entity that came out of the Canadian Wheat Board, is Saudi majority-controlled. Saudi Arabia is also a significant importer of Canadian barley.

There are a number of explanations being offered for why Saudi Arabia has overreacted to Canada’s rather routine call for a political prisoner to be freed. The two most common have been that it is for domestic political consumption, or it is a form of diplomatic signalling to regional players. There has been little commentary pertaining to what is enabling this at the strategic level.

Grand strategy pertains largely to the environment in which an actor operates. This can mean many things, but on the largest scale – world politics – it means the diplomatic, economic, military, and geographical power of a state and how those elements influence its actions.

Canada’s geography has dominated its grand strategy. We are neighbours to the U.S., and it is through Canadian airspace that Russians must penetrate to strike the U.S. The proximity to the U.S., therefore, has determined economic power by providing a rich, resource hungry customer. U.S. military power, allows Canada to take a “defence against help” approach to military spending – spend just enough to defend ourselves so that the U.S. does not have to degrade our sovereignty by doing it for us. These two elements allowed us to diplomatically act much different than a more isolated middle power – look at Australia, which has a much more robust defence posture and outlook. We could pursue trade agreements more freely, and take on special causes at the UN, because our own security – economic and territorial – was never threatened. If sovereignty was ever threatened, the U.S. would do the heavy lifting.

These principles are of course subject to caveats. Canada does maintain relationships that are based more on security interests. This includes dealing with governments in the Middle East that are unsavoury. Still, Canada has not been shy about bringing up human rights issues when needed, and most of the governments there understand it is part of being a modern middle power in the West – from time-to-time, they will discuss human rights for domestic and international political reasons.

But, the environment, where autocratic or questionable governments were constrained by the need to keep the U.S. happy by at least paying lip service to human rights is severely strained. Saudi Arabia would not be able to lash out at Canada were the U.S. still perceived as upholding the fragile alliance structure that defines Middle East geopolitics. Yes, Canada shares few values with Saudi Arabia or the other Gulf states, but a relationship exists because we value stability in the region, and, despite Saudi funding of terrorists over the decades, they are useful in the fight against violent extremism. This problem would only be exacerbated if the Saudi state were to fall into anarchy, or a major war between Saudi Arabia and Iran were to break out. But, with the U.S. pursuing a transactional foreign policy, seeing all allies as intrinsically equal in value, then infighting that would not have been tolerated before is now acceptable. And when political conflict occurs, it is now inevitable that economics is used as a weapon, because the old rules are no longer being enforced by the U.S.

Of course, another bedrock Canadian ally is refusing to take sides. The U.K. issued a statement similar to that of the U.S. The U.K. is in the middle of their own foreign policy crisis, trying to maintain as many trade relationships as possible to fight against the negative effects of Brexit. Only the EU Parliament has been vocal in supporting Canada’s Twitter statement about Saudi human rights abuses.

But with the U.S. no longer concerned about the international order, the global structure which allowed Canada the freedom to discuss human rights with U.S. partners and still maintain relationships is under stress. Canada is limited in how it can respond, both to this direct incident with Saudi Arabia and to the greater environment and the global changes occurring. One suggestion is for a more cohesive bloc of middle powers to form and uphold the current system. This would require heavy lifting, and also acknowledging some unwanted realities – namely that the U.S. is indeed no longer interested in the liberal rules-based order. For the time being, most in the foreign policy world want to believe that the U.S. will escape its fever dream and return to its old role in 2020, or at worst 2024.

With the lessons that the rest of the world, including Saudi Arabia, is taking from this current geopolitical moment, it may be too late. Heavy lifting is exactly what is needed.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.